War in the US; when will it come?

[American Patriot]

Shoulder-Fired Missiles Pose Serious Threat to Passenger Jets
U.S. Planes Have No Defense Against Cheap, Widely Available Weapons

By BRIAN ROSS, JILL RACKMILL and ERIC LONGABARDI

March 27, 2006 — The potential target: an American commercial jet.

The potential weapon: a shoulder-to-air missile that terrorists fire at the jet on takeoff.

Since 1980, 24 commerical aircraft have been taken down and 500 people have been killed by shoulder-fired missiles worldwide. (Samantha Appleton/Aurora )

Worldwide, at least 24 civilian aircraft have been brought down by shoulder-fired missiles, and more than 500 people have been killed. And experts say that shoulder-to-air missiles can be bought for only a few thousand dollars on the black market. But U.S. commercial aircraft still have no defense system against these portable missiles.

Scare in Los Angeles

Last November, just minutes after takeoff from Los Angeles International Airport, an American Airlines pilot reported that something resembling a rocket might have been fired at his aircraft.

"American 612, can you verify whether you saw a flare or a rocket?" radioed an air-traffic controller.

"It looked more like a rocket to me," the pilot responded. "I'm pretty sure it was a rocket of some kind, because it had a definite plume coming out behind it."

The immediate concern was that the plume was in fact the trail of a shoulder-fired missile. The Coast Guard dispatched a cutter and a helicopter, and the FBI opened an investigation.

"We searched the area," said U.S. Coast Guard Lieutenant Clay Clary. "Nothing was found."

Although officials concluded it was most likely a hobby rocket, the investigation remains officially open.

"We had a scare in Los Angeles," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who serves on the Senate Subcommittee on Aviation. "We've been told that they cannot rule out the fact that it was a shoulder-fired missile."

Although all the attacks to date have been on foreign soil, a potential attack on an American commercial jet remains a very serious concern. They say that an estimated 20,000 shoulder-fired missiles, most of them made in Russia, are for sale on worldwide black markets.

"It's a disaster waiting to happen," Boxer said.

The most recent attack was on a DHL cargo plane hit while taking off from Baghdad in November 2003. The plane managed to land safely with its left wing on fire.

In November 2002, an Israeli charter plane carrying tourists was fired at on takeoff from Mombasa, Kenya. The attack intensified Israeli efforts to equip its civilian aircraft against shoulder-to-air missiles.

[American Patriot]

It is my contention that the first shots fired in the US will be at commercial airliners, along the Mexican-US border by non-military personnel, and American citizens minding their own business.

I also think that the second shots fired will be by US Citizens who are tired of the debacle along that same border, and many people will end up dying because of it. However, it will be followed by a full-scale ground invasion and most LIKELY a preemptive nuclear strike from a certain, large foreign country (someone with nukes).

Expect the worst if that happens.

[ExplodedMind]

Rick, you wrote: "However, it will be followed by a full-scale ground invasion and most LIKELY a preemptive nuclear strike from a certain, large foreign country (someone with nukes)."

China, the last Hegemon. Hmmm. It takes quite a while to position troops for a full-scale invasion. Coming in after a nuke strike would be problematic, coming in before...suicidal. I would think we would short circuit a ground invasion attempt with air power. Tell me more about such a set-to if you are of a mind to....

EM

[Sean Osborne]

It is my contention that the first shots fired in the US will be at commercial airliners...

Rick,

From my perspective those first shots were fired on July 17, 1996 at TWA Flight 800. There is significant evidence that the Swedish-made RBS70 SAM was the weapon used in that shotdown. We are coming up on the ten-year anniversary of that shoot down - which was completely suppressed by TPTB. At that time I was with my wife and my infant twin sons on the boardwalk in Avon-By-The-Sea, NJ looking at the event to the northeast off Long Island.

Flight 587 by all appearances was also a terrorist take-down, but the jury is still out on whether that was a MANPAD or a shoebomb. In either case Al Qaeda did in fact claim responsibility for that attack.

AA Flight 612 was a MANPADS incident. We nearly had another incident last year at Tinker AFB. A TALON report was issued in that case.

In the LA/ Flight 612 incident there were private watercraft involved... just like in the TWA 800 case. Three (3) small privately owned boats were observed from the Pier in Long Beach by several eyewitnesses practicing coordinated maneuvers directly under the path of departing LAX flights. There is radar data which shows the MANPAD missile as it passes AA FLT 612... in fact the radar even confused the missile with the aircraft for a brief moment - that's how close it was to the aircraft.

It is a matter of time before a terrorist MANPADS incident drops a US passenger aircraft on a populated area of CONUS.

[American Patriot]

Agreed about flight 800.

If you go back on Anomalies many years back you will find my own statements about what I thought there.

Rick

[American Patriot]

Check this site out, for those of you interested in military stuff.

http://www.thatcherthunders.org/ttruscom2.htm

Do not believe for a moment that the "Red Dawn Scenario" is not possible.

Rick

[American Patriot]

http://regimechangeiran.blogspot.com/

[American Patriot]

China, the last Hegemon. Hmmm. It takes quite a while to position troops for a full-scale invasion. Coming in after a nuke strike would be problematic, coming in before...suicidal. I would think we would short circuit a ground invasion attempt with air power. Tell me more about such a set-to if you are of a mind to....

Ok... takes awhile to position troops. Yes it does. Let me see...

Let's start here -- at the Panama Canal.

The following article was found at Newsmax.com:

Is China in Control of the Panama Canal?


Read More on the US Situation with the Panama Canal in Hot Topics.

A Chinese company with close ties to the Beijing Communist government was planning to take over the operation of the Panama Canal, a secret government report revealed.

And according to Adm. Thomas Moorer, with facilities at both ends of the canal and an agreement with the Panamanian government, Hong Kong-based Hutchison Whampoa Ltd. has the ability to all but control the strategic waterway.

The company has long-term 25-year leases on the ports at each end of the Canal. They are run by the Panama Ports Co., a Hutchison Whampoa subsidiary.

Last November President Clinton almost let the Chinese cat out of the bag when he appeared to agree that the Chinese firm would be running the canal, but after his staff realized the extent of what he’d revealed, he pulled back, saying that he’d "misstated this.”

Asked by a reporter, "You’re not worried about the Chinese controlling the Canal?" Mr. Clinton replied: "I think the Chinese will, in fact, be bending over backwards to make sure that they run it in a competent and able and fair manner.... I would be very surprised if any adverse consequences flowed from the Chinese running the canal."

The following day, December 1, Los Angeles Times staff writer Norman Kempster wrote that "Clinton administration officials were aghast at the president’s use of the phrase ‘running the canal,’” which confirmed what Adm. Moorer and his allies were charging. " On December 9, Mr. Clinton stated that his reference the previous week to China "running the canal" was a "misstatement."

The release of the report is sure to give impetus to congressional efforts to nullify the treaty that handed the canal over to Panama -- a treaty which Rep. Helen Chenoweth-Hage (R-Idaho) insists is not binding on the United States.

The Army intelligence report declassified after a Freedom of Information request from Judicial Watch, a conservative public interest law firm, flatly contradicted Clinton’s claim and those of the Panamanian government that the company would have no role in the operation of the canal, a fact easily dismissed in the light of an agreement between Hutchison Whampoa and Panama that gives the company the right to choose the pilots who take the ships through the canal.

"It's one more piece of evidence that the Clinton administration was lying about Communist Chinese intentions in Panama," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told the Washington Times.

According to the April 22, 1998, intelligence report, an article from the Defense Intelligence Agency intelligence information service headed "Panama: China Awaits U.S. Departure" stated "Li Ka-shing, the owner of Hutchison Whampoa Lt. (HW) and Cheung Kong International holdings Ltd. (CK) is planning to take control of Panama Canal operations when the U.S. transfers it to Panama in December 99,"

"Li is directly connected to Beijing and is willing to use his business influence to further the aims of Chinese government," the report states. An army intelligence analyst is quoted in the report as noting that "Li's interest in the canal is not only strategic, but also a means for outside financial opportunities for the Chinese government."

Congressional efforts to throw the treaty out are spearheaded by Rep. Chenoweth, who told The New American magazine:

"The Panama Canal issue is far from over. The 1977 treaties under which the transfer has taken place are still invalid, and the security problems presented by the Communist Chinese and the Colombian drug lords have not gone away. We cannot even begin to expect Panama to have near the capacity and ability to deal with these powerful entities and threats to the Western Hemisphere.

"We can either sit around and wait for something bad to happen, and then react, or we can take pre-emptive measures now, restoring the security of the region and functioning under valid law.

"We must as a Congress declare that these treaties are already, in fact, null and void, and are now being officially terminated. In so doing, Congress will send a signal to Panama that we must re-establish the strength and authority of the United States for this critical area. That is what House Joint Resolution 77 accomplishes, and I intend to continue to strongly push this legislation in the upcoming year. In fact, as more and more members of Congress learn about the seriousness of this issue, the momentum of this bill will steadily increase -- and I anticipate it being a major issue in the presidential and congressional campaigns this year.”

Adm. Moorer, in an August article in The New American, wrote:

"The Chinese penetration of Panama has been effected primarily through an entity known as the Panama Ports Company, a front corporation for Hutchison-Whampoa Limited, a Communist Chinese-controlled company owned by Hong Kong billionaire Dr. Li Ka-shing. Dr. Li’s business empire has long been intertwined with enterprises that front for the Communist military and intelligence arms of the People’s Republic of China. Ten percent of his Panama Ports Company is owned by China Resources, the commercial arm of China’s Ministry of Trade and Economic Cooperation.

"Two years ago, on July 16, 1997, Senator Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) was quoted in the South China Morning Post as stating that China Resources was 'an agent of espionage -- economic, military, and political -- for China.' Shen Jueren, the Communist official who heads China Resources, and Li Ka-shing are both partners in the Riady family’s Hong Kong Chinese Bank. Dr. Li is also a principal in the PRC’s huge China Telecom, and the China International Trust and Investment Corporation (CITIC), a ministry-level conglomerate with global assets of $21 billion run by Chinese "princeling" Wang Jun. As chairman of Poly Group, Wang Jun also serves as the PRC’s main arms dealer to Communist regimes, terrorists, and rogue states. Nevertheless, Shen Jueren and Wang Jun, like many other notorious Red Chinese agents bearing campaign gifts, were welcome guests at the Clinton-Gore White House.”

The magazine noted that Moorer has repeatedly pointed out that Panama Law No. 5, passed by the Panamanian legislature on January 16, 1997, did far more than grant Hutchison Whampoa port concessions.

According to Moorer, the law grants Hutchison Whampoa -- and, therefore, China -- exclusive concessions, including, among other things: "Control of the port of Balboa on the Pacific end of the canal and the port of Cristobal on the Atlantic end. In addition to these critical anchorages, Hutchison was granted a monopoly on the Pacific side with its takeover of Rodman Naval Base, a U.S.-built, deep-draft port facility capable of handling, supplying, refueling, and repairing just about any warship."

Moreover, Moorer observes, it grants Li Ka-shing’s company responsibility for hiring new pilots for the Canal. "Pilots have complete control of all ships passing through the canal," says Moorer. "They determine which ships may go through and when."

As Rep. Chenoweth said, the Panama Canal issue is far from over.

[American Patriot]

More Panama Canal information:

The Washington Times
September 28, 1999

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott has asked the Senate Armed Services Committee to conduct hearings on China's growing presence around the Panama Canal, a strategic waterway being transferred to Panamanian ownership on Dec. 31. "It is the perception of some of my colleagues and I that the Chinese involvement in Panama may not be straightforward and could, in fact, be a threat to our national security," Mr. Lott wrote in a Sept. 24 letter to Senate Armed Services Chairman John W. Warner, Virginia Republican.

[American Patriot]

This next one is from a military analyst, circ 1999.

Analysis: America Risks a Nuclear Pearl Harbor

Admiral Thomas H. Moorer
November 17, 1999

For the last two years I've been fighting an often lonely battle against Bill Clinton and what could well be the deadliest sellout of America in our history.

I feel today as I did on the eve of Pearl Harbor. America is in danger and we could face another Pearl Harbor — only this time it may be a nuclear Pearl Harbor.

I am referring to Bill Clinton's decision to OK the imminent takeover of the Panama Canal by Communist China. For over 80 years, keeping the Canal under the control of the U.S. was properly regarded as vital for the safety of all Americans.

Control of the Canal will give China the ability to block vital food and oil shipments to the U.S....prevent deployment of our navy in times of national emergency...and create an enemy beachhead within striking distance of our cities. Red Chinese J-11 attack jets — each of which can drop 13,000 pounds of bombs — launched from Panama can strike our cities.

The notion that a U.S. president and Congress could allow this Canal — built and defended by the U.S. at an incredible cost in treasure and blood — to fall under the control of our avowed enemies, the Red Chinese — without a shot being fired — is incredible. Yet we are just days away from that nightmare becoming reality.

The Canal is Vital for America's Safety

Strategically the Canal is a "choke-point," one of four places in the world where a small area can block trade for an entire continent. The other three are the Suez Canal, the Straits of Gilbraltar and the Molucca Straits near the Spratly Islands. (In the past year the Clinton administration has allowed the Chinese to seize some of the Spratly Islands, and they are currently building naval facilities there.)

Built and maintained by the United States at a cost of American blood and treasure — over $32 billion, more than 13,000 commercial vessels transit the Panama Canal every year, carrying 190 million long tons of cargo. Every month, over 1,000 ships use the Canal to bring food and oil to millions of Americans.

The Canal is also vital for our national defense. In the past year, our naval vessels used the Canal countless times. This 51-mile waterway cuts 8,000 miles off the trip around the southern tip of South America, saving as much as two weeks of transport time. In warfare, time means lives and that much time can mean the difference between defeat and victory.

Imagine that there was a crisis over Taiwan, or North Korean troops were invading South Korea — massacring our men there — it would be critical to control the Canal and speedily move naval forces to the area. Now Bill Clinton wants America to abandon the Panama Canal. Unless the American people raise a terrific outcry, on December 31, Communist China will take control of the Panama Canal and begin to occupy U.S. military facilities which are now being abandoned by our troops.

If you visit Panama today, you'll see ghost towns where just a few months ago there were 10,000 U.S. troops. They're gone and there is no Panamanian army to replace them.

The Clinton administration has been quick to dispatch American troops all over the world, to places like Kosovo, Haiti, and Timor — these are places not vital to American interests.

The Panama Canal is vital for us, yet the Clinton administration won't allow any American military presence there. That makes the Panama Canal incredibly vulnerable to attack by groups like the narco terrorists who are allied with Fidel Castro and hate the U.S....communist guerrillas who are operating in the area...and to influence by foreign powers eager to move into the strategic vacuum left by the U.S. withdrawal.

Of greatest concern is the growing Chinese presence and domination of Panama and the Canal. Panama has signed a 50-year lease for two ports at each end of the Canal with a company called "Hutchison Whampoa" run by one Li Ka-Shing. Ka-Shing is a member of China's ruling power elite and Hutchison Whampoa is connected to China's ruling council.

Panama's lease with Hutchison Whampoa gives China's Communist Party de facto control over the most strategic waterway in the West. Under Panama's agreement, Hutchison Whampoa will control port facilities at both ends of the Canal...they'll control who is allowed to pilot ships through the canal and can assign their own pilots...and they'll also be able to refuse access to the Canal by any ship for "business reasons."

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott has stated that Hutchison Whampoa is "an arm of the People's Liberation Army" and that U.S. naval ships will now be "at the mercy" of Red Chinese.

China's Takeover of the Canal Threatens Your Security

In 1996 Chinese officials told the New York Times they were quite prepared to use nuclear weapons against American cities like Los Angeles if we tried to stop their takeover of the democratic nation of Taiwan.

Just a few months ago, the official Chinese newspaper warned the U.S. that China was willing to use nuclear bombs against American aircraft carriers if they interfered in Chinese plans to invade Taiwan.

In fact, with our navy blocked from moving through the Canal and Chinese missiles and jets poised to launch from Panama, China could intimidate the U.S. into surrendering Taiwan, Panama, and God knows what else without a shot being fired. If that didn't work, they could just lob a few missiles at our cities.

Communist China Is Our Enemy

This is the same regime that massacred thousands of students at Tiananmen Square and which supplies terrorist regimes in Iran, Syria, Libya and North Korea with missiles and weapons of mass destruction.

This is the same regime which "harvests" the organs of political dissidents, burns churches and imprisons millions of its own citizens in concentration camps.

This is the same China that stole our most secret nuclear weapons, missile and satellite technology and tried to smuggle into California 100,000 automatic weapons and millions of rounds of ammunition. We still don't know for sure why China was smuggling these weapons into the United States.

This is the same communist government that calls America "the #1 enemy" and threatened to attack Los Angeles with nuclear weapons if we interfere with their planned re-conquest of Taiwan.

Thanks to Bill Clinton and China's recent, wholesale acquisition of U.S. military technology, China is now building weapons of mass destruction at breakneck speed and rapidly becoming a global military power. Control of the Panama Canal will give Communist China a beachhead for expanded aggression in Latin America and direct assault on the U.S.

When Taiwan conducts their national elections this spring, less than six months from now, China could make good on its threat of war against the U.S.

In fact, with our navy blocked from moving through the Canal and Chinese missiles and jets poised to launch from Panama, China could intimidate the US into surrendering Taiwan, Panama, and God knows what else without a shot being fired.

If that didn't work, they could just lob a few missiles at our cities. China has plenty of short-range missiles capable of hitting L.A., Houston, Miami and many other cities.

China's impending takeover of the Panama Canal is of utmost significance to the United States, but the Clinton administration and its media friends have turned a blind eye to this dangerous development.

In light of China's massive contributions to the Clinton-Gore campaign and the Democratic National Committee, and President's Clinton's subsequent radical changes of policy to benefit the People's Republic of China, one can only wonder if this is yet another quid pro quo for Chinese cash.

If we allow China to take control of the Panama Canal, we are setting ourselves up for inevitable conflict. We will be forced, as a matter of national survival, at some not too distant point in the future, to go to Panama and win back militarily what we have bought and built, and what is rightfully ours. When that happens, we will have to pay a high price in blood and treasure again, because the alternative will be far worse.

We Can Stop Bill Clinton's Giveaway of the Canal

Until recently, even Republican members of Congress seemed oblivious to the distressing implications of surrendering control of the Panama Canal to Communist China. Finally, however, at the 11th hour, a few in Congress are waking up. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott and Dana Rohrbacher of California have both protested the imminent communist takeover.

Lott has also requested Congressional hearings into the Canal giveaway. So we now have a small window of opportunity to roll back this disaster. We must do everything we can to encourage them and stop the giveaway of the Panama Canal.

First, inform yourself. You need to understand what's at stake in the Canal giveaway and who is responsible for it. One way you can do that is by going to www.NewsMax.com and clicking on the "Panama Canal" link under Hot Topics.

Second, alert your friends, your neighbors, journalists, and local officials. Call local talk shows, write letters to the editor, get the word out to anyone who will listen.

Third, demand that your representatives in Washington take action to stop the Canal giveaway. Call your Congressman and Senators IMMEDIATELY at 202-225-3121. Tell them you agree with me, that the Panama Canal can not, must not, be turned over to the Chinese, and that the U.S. must continue a military presence in Panama.

Please take action now and help stop this betrayal of our country.

Admiral Thomas H. Moorer's distinquished military career included serving under six U.S. presidents. He was a naval officer during World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War. Admiral Moorer retired from active duty after serving two terms as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the nation's highest military post.

[American Patriot]

Rebels Strike As US Yields Panama Canal
NewsMax.com
December 14, 1999

Just as the Clinton administration was quietly downplaying a ceremony Tuesday relinquishing the U.S.'s historic control of the Panama Canal, communist rebels in adjoining Colombia struck.

Some 600 guerrillas of the Revolutionary Armed Forces attacked the Pacific coast town of Jurado on Sunday, killing 45 Colombian marines.

The rebels inflicted the worst defeat suffered by Colombia in the civil war that has killed more than 35,000 in the past 10 years.

According to the London Telegraph, which has been following Panama Canal developments more closely than many major American news outlets:

The Colombian army of 120,000 has been hard put to contain the 20,000 guerrillas in its midst.

Colombian insurgents and drug smugglers have already begun to wage "turf wars" near deserted U.S. bases.

"United States military authorities are worried the rebel forces could launch attacks inside Panama and even on the canal itself once America's withdrawal is complete Dec. 31," the Telegraph reported.

"It is widely accepted that Panama would have little chance against them. It simply hopes the border problem will go away."

There is increasing concern within the U.S. that Communist China may move in, as part of its global efforts to enhance its economic and military position.

The Panamanian government has given a 25-year lease to a Hong Kong-based company to manage the two ports located strategically at either end of the waterway connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

Despite repeated denials by the company, Hutchison Whampoa, reports persist that it is a front for the Chinese People's Liberation Army, which has extensive economic interests worldwide.

As criticism mounted within the Republican-led Congress over the U.S. hand-over of the Panama Canal after nearly a century, President Clinton has been trying to exit the region with as little fanfare as possible.

First Clinton, then his secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, boycotted the event.

This left former President Jimmy Carter as the lone stellar U.S. attendee. While president, Carter lobbied for and signed the treaty, approved by one vote in the Senate in 1977.

Panama's Foreign Minister Jose Miguel Aleman sought to minimize the significance of the reduced U.S. delegation, even as King Juan Carlos of Spain and President Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico were planning to attend.

In a recent poll in La Prensa, 61 per cent of the Panamanian population was reported opposed to a complete withdrawal of the American military, which had 64,000 personnel stationed there in World War II.

"The truth is that we cannot believe they're going," Javier Castano, a bar owner in Panama, told the Telegraph.

"We always thought there would be some deal, like the anti-drug center, which would mean U.S. troops stayed."

[American Patriot]

The Panama Canal Giveaway and Russian/Chinese realignment
TV Interview by George Putnam of Adm. Moorer and Col. Lunev.
View this interview in streaming video! http://www.newsmax.com/tvspecial.shtml

On December 31st of this year, the United States will turn over complete control of the Panama Canal to Panama. The move is the result of a treaty signed by Jimmy Carter in 1977. But now U.S. military experts and others are raising concerns. The Canal is the most strategic waterway in the Western Hemisphere. President Theodore Roosevelt began construction of the Canal and today one third of the world's shipping passes through its waters. Former Military Commanders such as Admiral Thomas Moorer, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the country's highest ranking military official, warned that that turn over would jeopardize Americans' security. U.S. Naval forces are at an all-time low and the Canal has become even more important to help trends in American troops.

Worse - the Clinton Administration is allowing Panama to turn over control of ports at each end of that Canal to a Chinese-controlled company. The company - Hutchinson Wampoa - will have de facto control of the Canal. Hutchinson Wampoa has partnered with companies close to the Chinese military. Senator Fred Thompson said one Hutchinson Wampoa partner is an agent of Chinese espionage. Majority Leader Trent Lott has called Hutchinson Wampoa an "arm of China's people's Liberation Army" and that U.S. Naval ships will soon be at the mercy of the Communist Chinese.

Joining us today to talk about the Clinton Administration turn over of our Panama Canal is Admiral Thomas Moorer. Admiral, why is the Canal in today's day of age so very important to us?

ATM: We have an ocean to the east of us and an ocean to the west of us and frequently we must transfer military supplies, commercial supplies, back and forth; and so in peace time the Canal is very very important from an economic point of view. And in wartime, its use is vital, in my opinion. I indicated that if we withdrew and left a vacuum, that it would be occupied by some foreign nation - either Russia or China - and now the Chinese are in there in force and I consider it a very dangerous thing.

GP: Admiral, the media and our government tell us that Chinese Communists are our friends. Admiral, can we trust the Red Chinese to have control of this strategic waterway?

ATM: The answer to your question is no, because they have made a public statement to the fact that the United States is their number one enemy. And if the Chinese are down there and we have been withdrawn, that gives them unlimited options as to what they can do to damage or interfere with shipping through the Canal.

GP: What are the Congress and the Clinton Administration doing about this, Admiral?

ATM: We had the hearing last Friday by the Senate Armed Services Committee. I was encouraged by the fact that many of the Senators spoke strongly about the need to take some action now so that our security is not in danger.

GP: China has worldwide ambitions too. They've seized the Sprightly Islands. They were trying to gain a port at Long Beach. They'll have control of the Panama Canal. They're supporting the Marxist guerrillas at Colombia! What is their long-term plan? What is it for us here?

ATM: Well, the Chinese have always indicated that the proper way to fight a war was not to make a frontal assault but rather to get around behind the enemy and cut off all their supplies.

GP: Admiral, you've made a very strong case. America needs to preserve the integrity of the Canal - the Canal that our soldiers fought and died for. What can ordinary Americans do that are concerned about this threat to our own security?

ATM: I believe that the average citizen should communicate immediately with their Congressmen and Senators.

GP: All right, people interested in expressing their opinion about the turn over of the Canal to the Communist Chinese can call your Congressman or your Senator. The Capitol Hills Congressional Switchboard - 202-225-3121.

The New Russia-Chinese Alliance with Colonel Lunev - Former Russian Spy

GP: China is fast becoming a world super power. It has the largest conventional military in all the world, with more than 5 million men under arms and reserves in the tens of millions. In recent years, it has become fabulously rich; billions have poured in through a lopsided trade surplus from the United States and from other western nations. Now they want Taiwan. China's Premiere has stated China is prepared to take the free island of Taiwan by force. If America intervenes, Chinese officials told the New York Times, that Chinese would be willing to bomb with nuclear weapons - American cities like Los Angeles. China can make such threats because it has got the technology to build such weapons from the Clinton Administration. Chinese leaders have stated the goal of this alliance has one purpose: to challenge the United States.

Joining us today from Washington is Colonel Stanislav Lunev - the highest-ranking military spy ever to defect from Russia - a man who served as one of Russia's top spies in both the United States and China. A man who regularly consults for our CIA, the FBI and other agencies. Now Col. Lunev's information was considered so sensitive, so valuable that he remains in the witness protection program and this is why his appearance is disguised.

Good friend, Col. Lunev, this is incredible! The U.S. government, Bill Clinton, turned over our missile technology that allows China to hit American cities like LA with pinpoint accuracy. There have been serious allegations that Bill Clinton received campaign cash for those transfers. Col. Lunev, you understand China. You were once a top Russian spy in China. Why does China so desperately want our technology?

CSL: Because China, contrary to American point of view, is considering the United States as a leader of World Imperialism. And according to Chinese Communist Party ideology, China needs to prepare itself for the future and unavoidable war and they need to have new types of up-to-date weapon systems.

GP: Col., it's been widely reported abroad, though not in our country here at home, that Russia and China have entered into a political and military alliance. Is this true? And what's the purpose of that?

CSL: Unfortunately, it's true and just now there are real possibilities that in the nearest future, it would be real military alliance between so-called "Democratic Russia" and Totalitarian Communist China - alliance which would be directed against the United States.

GP: This is very ominous. We now have the country with the largest nuclear arsenal - Russia - allied with the country with the largest conventional army - China. And thanks to the Clintons, China's nuclear arsenal is also fast expanding. Col., is Russia still a threat?

CSL: Yes. Russian government still considering the United States like main potential military adversary or the enemy; and they are preparing military machine for the future war against America. And they explain to Russian people that America is the same enemy to Russia like it was enemy to former Soviet Union because America already destroyed former Soviet Union, destroyed Yugoslavia and next step, America will try to destroy Russia itself.

GP: Frightening! Col., you told the CIA that Russia had plans to deploy suitcase nuclear weapons in American cities at military installations and the Russians claim some of those suitcase nukes have simply disappeared. Is it possible that some of these weapons are already deployed right here in the United States?

CSL: Most, but more than 100 technical and nuclear devices designed for special operation forces commanders I think are already deployed in the United States of America.

GP: In a new videotape called "Russia's Secret War Plans," you talk about Russia's Y2K computer problems and you warn that there's a risk of an accidental war in the coming months. Col., how serious is this risk?

CSL: Unfortunately there is very real danger that the new world war, nuclear war, could happen and connected with this possible accident.

GP: Col., it's very clear to me that you have important, vital information - information the American people need to know.

NewsMax.com has a special offer to help get that information - your information - to our American people. You can order Col. Lunev's book and videotape right now by calling by going to NewsMax.com's online store.

Now if you order today, NewsMax.com has a special package: "America on the Brink." In this package, you will receive:

* Col. Lunev's best-selling hardcover book "Through the Eyes of the Enemy" (a value of $24.95)
* As a special bonus, you'll also get a videotape interview with Col. Lunev called "Secret Russian War Plans" (a value of $19.95)
* "Betrayal" - the hardcover book by Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz (a value of $27.95)
* An audio cassette - "The China Threat" - a special briefing by Admiral Thomas Moorer (a value of $19.95)

[American Patriot]

I've probably made my point about how China could possibly move a LOT of troops perhaps without our knowledge or without us getting enough intelligence to recognize what is happening precisely until it is too late.

The Panama Canal was turned over in 1999 to China, basically to a Chinese company that is "tied" (read: RUN BY) the Chinese government.

China, for anyone who hasn't figured it out is a COMMUNIST country. Communism is a form of government that hates Capitalism. Communism, especially the Chinese form thereof, will do anything to take down capitalism. We, by the way are a Capitalist society.

That means we're the target of the Chinese Government. We are the largest existing superpower in the world today. China would be considered second to us in it's ability to deliver nuclear weapons to our shores in a quick and decisive attack.

I will post one last article on the Canal. Then I will talk about about "missiles".

Rick

China company grabs power over Panama Canal

By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott recently wrote to Defense Secretary William S. Cohen that a Chinese shipping company is gaining broad authority over the Panama Canal and could deny passage to U.S. ships.
"It appears that we have given away the farm without a shot being fired," the Mississippi Republican said in the Aug. 1 letter requesting Mr. Cohen's security assessment.
It was the first time a congressional leader has raised questions about growing Chinese influence over one of the world's most strategic waterways. Until now, warnings were being raised primarily by a handful of conservative lawmakers, led by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, California Republican, who plans a fact-finding trip to Panama on Monday.
The focus of concern is Hutchinson Whampoa Ltd., a giant Hong Kong-based shipping firm with ties to China's leadership and its armed forces, the People's Liberation Army (PLA).
Under circumstances the U.S. Embassy in Panama called unusual, the government in 1997 awarded Hutchinson a 25- to 50-year contract to run the two major ports on the canal's Atlantic and Pacific entrances.
Moreover, conservatives assert that Panama gave Hutchinson broader powers in legislation known as "Law No. 5."
Al Santoli, an aide to Mr. Rohrabacher, said the law enables Hutchinson to assign the pilots who take control of ships and steer them through the canal. He also said the Chinese company can block passage of ships to meet its business needs.
This contention was challenged by a spokesman for the Panama Canal Commission, a panel of five Americans and four Panamanians who run the waterway. The Panama Canal Commission spokesman said the treaty gives the United States the right to intervene militarily to protect access.
Mr. Lott wrote to Mr. Cohen, "This administration is allowing a scenario to develop where U.S. national security interests could not be protected without confronting the Chinese communists in the Americas. U.S. naval ships will be at the mercy of Chinese-controlled pilots and could even be denied passage through the Panama Canal by Hutchinson, an arm of the People's Liberation Army.
"In addition, the Chinese Communist Party will gain an intelligence information advantage by controlling this strategic chokepoint. It appears that we have given away the farm without a shot being fired."
The senator sent the letter based on an article in Insight magazine, a sister publication of The Washington Times, that detailed Hutchinson's ties to the PLA. The Times first reported in 1997 that Hutchinson had gained control of the port of Balboa on the Pacific and Cristobal on the Atlantic.
The United States is the No. 1 user of the canal that carries 13,000 ships per year.
The U.S. military is abandoning bases in Panama under a 1977 treaty, signed by President Carter, that gives canal ownership to Panama, effective Dec. 31.
Mr. Santoli said the canal is part of a Chinese strategy to move into countries abandoned by the United States and the former Soviet Union. In Cuba, for example, Chinese intelligence officials are helping Cuba build a communications facility, he said.
"They're using Panama as a staging area for the region," Mr. Santoli said. "They're doing a massive amount of construction, a lot of investment. Literally hundreds of mainland Chinese are moving into Panama at all levels."
The Miami Herald on Monday quoted Panama's ousted intelligence chief as accusing his country's president, Ernesto Perez Balladares, of personally demanding visas for 140 Chinese immigrants.
The newspaper said the U.S. Justice Department is investigating a scheme in which Chinese immigrants paid $15,000 each for visas to use Panama as a staging area for illegal entry into the United States.
The Panama debate comes amid broader questions about China's strategic intentions and criticism of President Clinton's pro-Beijing policies from both Democrats and Republicans.
Military experts say a pattern of Chinese actions reveals a long-range strategic plan to dominate Asia and exert influence worldwide. The moves include its forays in Panama, its failed attempt to take over the old Long Beach, Calif., naval base, its suspected spying at U.S. nuclear labs, its illegal injection of campaign cash into Democratic Party coffers and its increased military spending, especially on nuclear weapons.
Reporting on a trip he and outside experts made to Panama in June, Mr. Santoli wrote in a report, "The delegation was concerned about the growing presence of communist China directly at the canal and in the region. Panama has become the central base of operations for communist China in Latin America."
Mr. Santoli said a Hutchinson subsidiary in Panama, Panama Ports Co., is partly owned by China Resources Enterprise, the commercial arm of the Chinese Ministry of Trade.
The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee has identified the Ministry of Trade as a conduit for "espionage -- economic, political and military -- for China."
Mr. Santoli said Li Kashing, chairman of Hutchinson, has served as a middleman for PLA dealings with the West, including satellite purchases from Hughes Corp.
Some downplay potential problems with Hutchinson's role in canal operations. For example, a former staffer to Sen. Jesse Helms, North Carolina Republican, issued a report in 1997 dismissing the company as a security threat.

[American Patriot]

The Clinton Administration was notorious for taking money from contributors which had ties to foreign, usually communist, governments. Here is something that happened during the Clinton administration. This is specifically why we are working on a missile defense today.

Clinton and Chinese Missiles

Charles R. Smith
Tuesday, Jan. 14, 2003

Chinese Army Gets U.S. Missile Technology for Money

A newly released document from the U.S. State Department reveals that the most successful Chinese espionage operation in recent history occurred during the Clinton administration.

The document accuses Hughes Space and Communications Company of violating U.S. national security 123 times by knowingly sending detailed missile and space technology directly to the Chinese army.

According to the State Department, the most serious violations occurred when Hughes gave the Chinese army information that supported its analyses of the investigation of the January 1995 failure of the launch of a China Long March 2E (LM-2E) rocket carrying the Hughes-manufactured ASTAR II commercial communications satellite.

On Jan. 26, 1995, approximately 52 seconds into flight, a Chinese LM-2E carrying the Hughes APSTAR II communications satellite failed. This was the LM-2E's second failure. The first failure of the LM-2E in December 1992 involved an attempted launch of the Hughes OPTUS B-2 commercial communications satellite.

"Respondents decided to form and direct a launch failure investigation beginning in January 1995 and continuing throughout much of that year. The investigation involved the formation of several groups of leading technical experts from China and the U.S., which throughout the investigation engaged in an extensive exchange of technical data and analysis, producing a wide range of unauthorized technology transfers," noted the State Department charge document.

"At no time did the Respondents seek or receive a license or other written approval concerning the conduct of their APSTAR II failure investigation with PRC authorities," states the charge document.

According to the State Department, "this strategy was further influenced by Respondents' business interests in securing future contracts with the PRC and with Asian satellite companies in which PRC influence figured prominently, and concern that U.S. Government policy constraints on technology transfer as administered by ODTC were an impediment to achieving these interests."

Chinese Rocket Failure Blamed on U.S.

According to a 1998 Defense Department investigation, the reason for Hughes passing the technical information to China was because the Chinese army blamed Hughes for the rocket failure.

"Following the APSTAR II failure, there was disagreement between Hughes and the Chinese about whether the principal cause of the failure was the launch vehicle or the satellite. The subsequent joint Hughes-Chinese failure investigation was apparently intended, at least in part, to resolve this dispute," states the 1998 Defense Department report.

"According to the Hughes/Apstar materials, the disagreement between Hughes and the Chinese focused on two views of the cause of the launch failure: (1) the Chinese claim that the satellite was defective as evidenced by satellite fuel igniting; and (2) Hughes' claim that the satellite was a contributing factor only after the launch vehicle fairing had failed which exposed the satellite to catastrophic conditions."

"DoD believes that the scope and content of the launch failure investigation conducted by Hughes with the Chinese following the January 1995 APSTAR II failure raises national security concerns both with regard to violating those standards and to potentially contributing to China's missile capabilities," states the Defense Department report.

PLA General Shen Rongjun

Chinese General Shen Rongjun led the penetration of U.S. missile and space technology during the Clinton administration. The 2002 State Department letter makes it clear that they believe Gen. Shen led the successful penetration of the Clinton administration and Hughes.

In 1994, Gen. Shen was second in command of a Chinese army unit known as COSTIND, or the Commission On Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense. Shen, and his COSTIND operatives in front companies, secured a wide range of advanced missile and space technology from Hughes after a 1994 meeting with Commerce Secretary Ron Brown.

Commerce documents obtained using the Freedom of Information Act show that Brown met with Gen. Shen in 1994 during a trade trip to Beijing. President Clinton personally authorized the meeting between the Chinese general and Brown.

Before moving to Commerce, Brown headed the Democratic National Committee. The Federal Election Commission fined the DNC in 2002 for "knowingly and willingly" accepting donations from Chinese army sources.

Gen. Shen did obtain help from the White House by pressuring Hughes with satellite contracts. Hughes CEO Michael Armstrong wrote President Clinton in 1993 threatening to pull support for Clinton if he did not allow the space technology transfers to China. In 1994, Clinton approved a waiver for Hughes to transfer advanced satellite encryption systems to China.

According to a Sept. 20, 1995, memorandum, Hughes regarded Gen. Shen Rongjun as "the most important Chinese space official."

The Chinese army penetration of Hughes was so successful that Gen. Shen managed to get his son, Shen Jun, a job at Hughes as the lead software engineer for all Chinese satellites. According to Hughes, Shen Jun had access to "proprietary" satellite source code.

"On July 9, 1996, Respondents submitted a munitions export license application to ODTC seeking authorization for one of its employees, Shen Jun, described as a dual Canadian Chinese national, in order to provide Chinese-English language translation and interpretation support for the preliminary design phase of the APMT satellite project," states the 2002 charge letter.

"In no place in that submission nor otherwise did HUGHES SPACE AND COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY inform ODTC that this individual was, in fact, the son of PLA General and COSTIND Deputy Director Shen Rongjun, which fact was material to the U.S. Government's consideration of whether the license application should be approved or denied."

"The record indicates that Shen Jun's role for Respondents went well beyond that of an interpreter/translator and more closely resembled that of an intermediary with his father, General Shen, and other PRC space authorities, in order to cultivate their support in various matters of interest to Hughes, including the handling of the APSTAR II launch failure investigation and the APMT contract," noted the State Department 2002 charge letter.

According to the State Department, Hughes contends that it followed the law with regard to hiring Gen. Shen's son.

"Respondents have maintained as of December 3, 2002, that this information was not material and that its omission was proper because there is no place in the munitions license application for them to disclose father-son relationships between General officers at the People's Liberation Army who are overseeing a project they are working on and their foreign national employees working in U.S. facilities on the same project."

Clinton Overrules Secretary of State

The alleged improper export by Hughes of satellite technology was cited as a key reason when Clinton's secretary of state, Warren Christopher, rejected a plan to give the Commerce Department full authority to control satellite exports.

According to a Sept. 22, 1995, memorandum, Christopher rejected plans to give Commerce the authority to approve satellite exports after an interagency study noted that "significant" military and intelligence capabilities could be lost.

The memorandum stated the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies strongly opposed the policy change because Hughes exported two satellites with sensitive cryptographic technology without first getting a State Department munitions license. Cryptographic technology is used to scramble communications sent to satellites to prevent unauthorized access.

President Clinton, who transferred the power to regulate sensitive satellites to Commerce, under Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, ultimately overruled Christopher.

Clinton's transfer allowed the Chinese army to acquire advanced U.S. technology for military purposes. Hughes satellites currently provide the Chinese army with secure communications that are invulnerable to earth combat and highly accurate all-weather navigation for strike bombers and missiles.

Hughes satellites purchased by Shen also provide direct TV and cable TV broadcasts to most of Asia. Thus, cable and pay-per-view services help pay for the Chinese army satellite communications. The brilliant planning and logistics mean that Chinese military communications pay for themselves.

Clinton Legacy – A New Arms Race

The satellite and missile technology obtained from Hughes by the Chinese army is critical for the design and manufacture of missile nose cones and electronic missile control systems. The technology clearly helped the Chinese army field a new generation of ICBMS, including the Dong Feng 31 missile, which can drop three nuclear warheads on any city in the U.S.

The success of Shen is a story of missiles, politics and greed. Gen. Shen succeeded in using Hughes and President Clinton as valuable tools to obtain weapons that are now pointed at the United States.

China won and the U.S. lost what may very well be the first round of World War III. Gen. Shen led that victory and he did it with a checkbook. The Clinton legacy for the 21st century is a new arms race.

[American Patriot]

US FIRMS AID CHINA BALLISTIC MISSILE TECHNOLOGY
April 7, 1998 - Emanuel A. Winston, Middle East analyst & commentator

In the NEW YORK TIMES of April 4, 1998, Jeff Gerth with Raymond Bonner exposed a manipulation wherein the US government and 2 major American arms companies transferred Ballistic Missile technology to China. As the Grand Jury was investigating whether 2 American companies gave China space expertise that significantly advanced Beijing's ballistic missile program, President Clinton issued an approval of this transfer 2 months ago. (1) In effect, he undercut the Grand Jury in order to protect what? or whom?

This is not the first time Clinton has shielded wrongdoers. On orders from Clinton, Attorney General Janet Reno was supposed to investigate the Bush transfer of $5 billion US taxpayers' dollars to Saddam Hussein through the US Department of Agriculture. Not surprisingly, Janet Reno said the investigation "showed no wrong-doing". Citizen Bush was given a pass.

The NYT article tells us that the China transfer investigation began as a result of an incident in February 15, 1996 when a Chinese rocket with an American satellite blew up. The Chinese called upon the American company, Loral, to find the problem. This required a transfer of technology to China.

While the Gerth/Bonner article speaks of 1996, this may be only the halfway point. Before that time there were various corporations and governmental interests who wanted to supply Saudi Arabia with advanced ballistic missiles. The problem was that Congress was unlikely to approve transfer of such nuclear-capable missiles as the Pershing, among others. But, Saudi Arabia did take delivery of ballistic missiles from China. That surprised most missile experts because at that point in time China was assessed as not having the technology to ship a tested and de-bugged missile. Fuel mixtures, telemetry, engine metals, et al could not meet the test of a reliable missile...or so the experts thought. They were shipped and there was an outcry in the US that Saudi Arabia has purchased nuclear-capable missiles. The Saudis denied this but refused to allow the metal shrouds (casings) to be lifted to see inside. If they had, the inspectors would have very likely identified American-made components.

At that point in time, Ronald Reagan was President; George Bush was Vice President (formerly DCI -Director of Central Intelligence) and Casper Weinberger was Secretary of Defense. When something critical is exposed in Washington, there is always a pre-plan intended to provide credible deniability. Sometimes the whistle-blower is attacked with false charges of personal slander or inaccurate information is leaked, causing Congress and the media to chase a false trail.

Shortly after delivery of the missiles, the rumor was floated that Israel had assisted the Chinese to build the missiles for Saudi Arabia. It was no secret that Israel as selling China some armaments. The problem with that particular rumor was that Israel was, at that time, having her own development problems with long range missiles. It would be highly unlikely for Israel to transfer flawed information to China and thus have China complete development and ship a fully operational system to Saudi Arabia - still in a declared state of war with Israel. Of course, there were those nations who had solved and successfully tested their ballistic missiles: the Soviet Union, France, the US. Leaking the rumor that it was Israel is a key clue that leads us back to the White House and Defense Department. Regretably, neither the Congress nor the Justice Department considered missile proliferation a topic worth investigating.

If China was to be the third party "cut-out" then the US would have to transfer both technology and actual missile components. Missile systems are made so that components respond to each other within a narrow band. Making a hybrid missile with different parts usually leads to operational failure. It just is not acceptable technical protocol.

If China was to receive an operational missile, it would have to be the organic whole. The only necessary change would be the replace its outer shell because that could be seen and identified.

Casper Weinberger, as Secretary of Defense could have authorized such a transfer. Congress can no longer ask Ronald Reagan if he was consulted but they can investigate George Bush's knowledge and culpability. The question to be asked is: "If President Bush pre-pardoned Casper Weinberger so he would not be called to testify in the Iran-Contra hearings, who would now protect Bush if these questions are asked?"

Did Casper Weinberger, a close supporter of Saudi Arabia act as the broker between the US, Saudi Arabia and China? Was then VP Bush knowledgeable about this technoloy transfer, in effect, squaring the triangle? When Jonathan Pollard began in 1984 and 85 to search the computer files of the intelligence agencies, there seems little doubt that he would come across anti-Israel operations. Of particular interest was Casper Weinberger motivation and actions, given his close connections with Saudi Arabia through Saudi Prince Bandar. Casper Weinberger was dismissed by President Reagan, possibly for the same reason that caused the US intelliegence agencies to fight so hard to keep Pollard in prison.

We have already seen President Clinton step in to scuttle investigation of the present China transfer. We have seen Clinton's Justice Department dismiss the Bush transfer of $5 billion US taxpayers' dollars to Saddam Hussein from the Department of Agriculture funds as acceptable. George Bush as former DCIA (Director of the CIA) would have had the power to assemble files on his opponents, much the same as did J. Edgar Hoover. If you recall, Hoover used the power of his office as head of the FBI for decades and those voluminous files to blackmail Congressmen and other politicians to do things his way - or else risk exposure.

I cannot think of anyone more susceptible to exposure that Bill Clinton. Clearly, there is more. For example: "Why did Arab money flow into Clinton's two gubernatorial runs for office? Why support an obscure candidate from a small unimportant state? Why was Arkansas often described as a center for trans-shipment of drugs? Why is President Clinton following Bush and Baker's example by pardoning all those who would testify in the matter?"

If there was a covert transfer of US missile technology to China, then it had to come only from the highest authority. George Bush and Casper Weinberger could no doubt shed a great deal of light on the matter - if forced to do so. That is, if there are any remaining records left. Recall that James Baker, before leaving the White House, tasked a former Justice Department prosecutor, Joseph di Genova with pulling the hard drives and disks from all the White House computers. This included all the electronic memory of the President's plane: Air Force One.

If there was an illegal transfer of technology to China for Saudi Arabia, the crime is far greater. China has been shipping advanced missiles to radical Third World nations for cash. They have promised to stop - but they continue regardless of their commitments. Congress, then and now, diddles with occasional hearings but with little effort to find the answers and correct the problems.

Clearly, one day American soldiers, cities in the Middle East and Europe will be exposed to hard-hitting missiles with support telemetry and warheads that destroy cities. We can thank the Chinese and those who assisted them.

Footnotes

1. "Companies Are Investigated for Aid to China on Rockets: But officials say Administration undercut inquiry by approving a similar deal" & "US Probes Rocket Advice to China" by Jeff Gerth with Raymond Bonner NEW YORK TIMES 4/4/98 & INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE 4/6/98

[American Patriot]

This next one comes right from Congress.....

I am going to upload it as it is a PDF file and about 60 pages. I will leave it to you all to download if you like and read it.

[American Patriot]

Russia, China to hold war maneuvers
Kyivpost.com (Ukraine) ^ | Jul 04 2006, 14:28

MOSCOW (AP) - Russia and China will stage joint military exercises for the second time following last year's first-ever Russo-Chinese war games, the chief of the Russian General Staff was quoted as saying July 4.

Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky said he had agreed with his Chinese counterpart Gen. Liang Guanglie that the next round of maneuvers would be held in Russia, the ITAR-Tass news agency reported.

Baluyevsky declined to disclose the date of the exercises.

In August last year, some 10,000 troops, mostly Chinese and about 1,800 Russians, took part in major drills in the Shandong peninsula in the Yellow Sea.

China and Russia sought to reassure the region that the exercises weren't directed against any country but the two giant neighbors have strengthened ties over shared concerns about U.S. dominance of world affairs.

The war games sparked debate in Russia over how closely the nation should cooperate with China, which many Russians see as a potential threat because of its size, economic might and proximity to sparsely populated, resource-rich Siberia.

[vector7]

Chinese Paratroopers in California?

(The following was written by the brilliant geo-political expert of world renown, Jeffery R. Nyquist. His web site is at www.JRNyquist.com )

A caller recently told talk radio host Art Bell about a disturbing dream: Chinese paratroops landing in California. Bell dismissed the idea as a logistical impossibility. How could the People's Republic sustain a credible invasion against the continental U.S.?

Art Bell has a point. The U.S. would not be an easy country to invade and occupy. Such an invasion would have to be prepared in advance, at great cost. First, there would have to be nuclear and biological strikes to weaken the defenses. China would then need bases, supply stockpiles and intact harbor facilities.

Looking at recent headlines, however, we ought to wonder if invasion preparations have not been underway in plain view. Russia and China have recently conducted joint military exercises in the Pacific. In April Russian bombers tested Alaska's air defenses. It must be recognized that Russia's missile-power and China's unlimited manpower have been joined into one clenched fist. This represents the fulfillment of KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn’s least-credited prediction about the end of the “Final Phase” of Russia’s long range deception strategy. Writing in his 1984 book, "New Lies for Old," Golitsyn explained:

Before long, the communist strategists might be persuaded that the balance had swung irreversibly in their favor. In that event they might well decide on a Sino-Soviet ‘reconciliation.’ The scissors strategy would give way to the strategy of ‘one clenched fist.’ At that point the shift in the political and military balance would be plain for all to see.

The plan for a joint military campaign against America, waged by Russia and China, was drawn up many years ago, and was explained in 1999 by the highest ranking defector of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Russian General Staff, Col. Stanislav Lunev (a Chinese-speaking Russian military officer who worked in China during the 1980s). Based on his own experiences, Lunev suspects that the Russians and Chinese were secretly allied before the collapse of the Soviet Union. Regarding the existence of a joint Russian-Chinese war plan, Lunev stated that prior to his 1992 defection, the Russian General Staff was still committed to fighting and winning a future nuclear war against America. “The nuclear war plan is still on,” he was told. But there would be changes.

No longer would Russian troops be responsible for a follow-up invasion of the lower 48 states (U.S. mainland). Russian forces would be responsible for occupying “Alaska and parts of Canada.” The Chinese would occupy the lower 48 states. In addition, certain Third World countries would be given “looting rights.”

Before expounding on this overall division of responsibilities between Russia and China it is important to explain that Russian ideas regarding a future nuclear war are not like American ideas. In America we think of nuclear war as the end of all life on earth. We are influenced in this view by fictional accounts, by movies written by persons who have no expert knowledge of military plans or methods. Not sharing America’s pulp fiction standpoint, the Russian generals are informed by the latest military science. Their war plans are precise. They know where the bombs will fall and where the fallout will land.

They know what areas will be radioactive and for how long. They also know that the world will not come to an end, even if two hundred million people die in a few days or weeks.

It is my experience, from talking with U.S. military experts, that they have not done their homework with regard to Soviet or Chinese war plans. Instead of carefully reading Russian military texts or listening to the testimony of Col. Lunev, U.S. strategists are blinded by their own preconceptions. They refuse to think creatively about nuclear war.

They fail to see how nuclear weapons might be used to clear a path for a new type of conventional fighting supported by logistical innovations. Who needs heavy, difficult-to-supply divisions when masses of light troops, living off the land, are all that is needed in the wake of nuclear and biological attacks? But U.S. strategists have not considered the possibilities. They have not looked closely into the logic of Chinese and Russian force structure, weapons developments and logistical preparations. They have not considered the Chinese use of shipping companies, port facilities and the appropriation of key logistical gateways under the cover of peacetime trade.

One U.S. expert I spoke with totally denied that Russia or China would consider occupying U.S. territory during a nuclear war. But the words of a classic Russian military text is unambiguous. On page 302 of the RAND translation of "Soviet Military Strategy" it says:

In a future war, the socialist coalition will aim at conclusive political and military goals. To attain those goals, it will not be enough just to destroy the enemy’s means of nuclear attack, to defeat his main forces by missile blows and to disorganize his rear. For final victory … it will be absolutely necessary to smash the enemy’s armed forces completely, deprive him of strategic areas of deployment, liquidate his military bases, and occupy his strategically important regions.

The Russian text goes on to state: “For this reason, the Ground Forces will undoubtedly play an important role, along with the missile forces, in achieving the final goals of the war.” Col. Lunev emphasized three points in his 1999 revelation about Russia’s plan for World War III. First, it is the union of Russian missile power with the Chinese foot soldier that offers a war-winning military combination. Second, America cannot resist this combination because the Russian missiles, in destroying the infrastructure needed to support highly modernized military forces, pave the way for the ascendancy of numerically superior but poorly supplied Chinese divisions. Third, by using port facilities in the Western Hemisphere the Chinese are presently preparing the logistical bases needed to support an invasion of the lower 48 states.

It is no accident that Chinese front companies control port facilities on both ends of the Panama Canal. It is not without strategic significance that China is building the largest container port on earth in the Bahamas. The Chinese interest in gaining footholds in the Western Hemisphere is related to a clearly developed plan in which Chinese troops have the main responsibility for occupying strategic ground.

Recently China’s Commission on Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense (COSTIND), together with the research department of the People’s Liberation Army, stated that shipbuilding is a “strategic industry” for China. According to the July 2001 issue of the U.S. Naval Institute’s Proceedings magazine, China’s efforts to dominate shipping and control commercial ports must be viewed within a strategic military framework.

Americans should know that the penetration of U.S. port facilities by Chinese entities is ultimately grounded in military science, not commercial greed. Last summer a CIA source confirmed that 22 Chinese freighters off-loaded a large quantity of military supplies in Mexico. What is this all about?

Because of the destructiveness of nuclear war, existing supply bases in Russia and China may not escape destruction. Consequently, alternate supply depots must be set up in neutral countries and on American soil (if possible). In this context, the Red Dawn scenario is no fantasy and Col. Stanislav Lunev is no idle talker.

Russia is a traditional blood and iron power based on the predator’s code. History shows that the Kremlin is ruthless. Animated by a national inferiority complex compounded by economic envy, Russian leaders dream of revenge. And so do the leaders of China. As for detente, "engagement," or whatever the latest appeasement might be called, the words of Dryden apply:

Thus in a pageant show a plot is made
And peace itself is war in masquerade.

As Stalin once said, "A diplomat's words must contradict his deeds -- otherwise, what sort of diplomat is he?" In 1936 William C. Bullitt, America's first ambassador to Soviet Russia, described Kremlin policy in the following terms:

[Russia] will not, in good faith, enter into any international agreements which have as their object improvement of the general economic condition of the world. It will, on the contrary, try to produce as much chaos as possible in the economies of capitalist countries in the hope that misery may beget communist revolution.

Consider, as well, the words of the Czech disinformation expert who defected many years ago, Zdzislaw M. Rurarz:

[Russia] is contemptuous of any treaty obligations that no longer serve its purposes. At the same time, it knows democratic countries cannot follow its example of blatantly violating valid treaties. The arms control talks and ensuing accords are exploited by … [Russia] for its own ends, and the lengthy process encourages deception and disinformation practices.

Wasn't it Lenin who wrote in 1905 that, “Promises are like pie crusts, made to be broken”? Yet President Bush, when he met Russian President Vladimir Putin last June, said: “I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul.”

A better sense of Putin's soul can be found in a televised speech given by the Russian president on June 22 of last year. On the sixtieth anniversary of Hitler’s attack on Russia, President Putin offered a stern warning to his people. The fascists are still out there, he said. “They still emit their poison in different parts of the earth.”

Dressed in a black suit, Putin hinted at future international dangers. “To this day,” Putin warned, “the world has not rid itself of ideologies that teach extreme nationalism, religious fanaticism and the idea of world dominance.”

I believe that this former KGB officer and one-time chief of Russia’s secret police was manipulating his listeners. After brutally smashing Chechnya he casts an envious glance toward the United States and its naïve president, George W. Bush. “The roots of fascism,” said Putin, “are far from eradicated.”

The shopworn Russian image of America as a fascist republic, run by racists and greedy capitalists, was subliminally evoked by Putin. And it was a performance that took place only one week after Putin’s first summit meeting with U.S. President George W. Bush.

On June 22, Putin reminded the Russian people that Hitler’s invasion cost over 20 million Russian lives. "No one will understand Russia,” he said, “until they know what our people lived through in the war, what experience they gained at the front. Nor would they understand our special feeling toward the Army and the defenders of the fatherland.”

A week earlier Putin had been smiling and joking with President Bush. “You named your daughters after your mother and mother-in-law,” said Putin to his American counterpart. “Well, so did I.” (See how much we have in common, Mr. President!)

But the reality is not so chummy. Putin looked into the Russian television cameras on June 22 and evoked that moment, in 1941, when “the people made their choice.” Putin was complimenting the Russians on their warlike resolve: “In this moment of danger the people chose to defend their fatherland to the last. They would not give up their homeland to the enemy.”

Putin told the Russian people that destructive war is an ever-present possibility. He summoned the memory of 20 million dead. "This is a day of mourning,” Putin explained, “but also a day of warning, a reminder.” And why should this reminder be relevant in 2001?

When Vladimir Putin was Prime Minister of Russia in 1999, the former chief of Russian military intelligence went on television to say that NATO was like the Third Reich. He told the Russian people to remember 1941, that history was repeating itself. This note of warning has appeared in the Russian media many times since.

This kind of talk by Russian officials indicates that a special psychology is at work behind Russian politics. It is a psychology that looks forward to the next war (though it pretends to crave peace). Americans will have trouble understanding this. After the practicality of a Third World War was questioned during a seminar, Col. Lunev once explained to a group of Americans in Washington that his entire 30-year career in the Russian military was focused on one thing: future nuclear world war with the United States. How would that war be fought? According to Lunev, Russia would provide the missile forces and China would provide the expendable ground forces. As the main target of Russian-Chinese military strategy, the United States would have to be invaded and occupied for final victory.

Veteran CIA analyst and congressional military advisor Peter Vincent Pry stated in a recent book, "War Scare: Russia and America on the Nuclear Brink,"

I have personally been on the receiving end of Russian nuclear threats over NATO expansion. In 1997 and again in 1998, a high-ranking Russian official, who has requested anonymity, warned me that NATO enlargement could trigger a nuclear war. The Russian official, claiming knowledge of military contingency plans ... said it was his personal view that these plans would be implemented....

Given these facts, is a Chinese invasion of North America as outlandish as Art Bell assumes?

In August 1998 I asked Col. Lunev if China allied with Russia could defeat the U.S. His answer was an unequivocal "yes." Given that Lunev's training teaches that victory is impossible without occupying the ground, his answer can only suggest one thing.

Chinese troops on U.S. soil is not far-fetched at all.

[American Patriot]

Well... it's a comin'....

[Kosciuszko]

the words of the Czech disinformation expert who defected many years ago, Zdzislaw M. Rurarz:

[Russia] is contemptuous of any treaty obligations that no longer serve its purposes. At the same time, it knows democratic countries cannot follow its example of blatantly violating valid treaties. The arms control talks and ensuing accords are exploited by … [Russia] for its own ends, and the lengthy process encourages deception and disinformation practices.

Prof. Rurarz was an economist and Polish ambasador to Japan, when he defected to the USA in 1981 (He walked into the USA embassy in Tokyo with his family, then asked and immediately received political asylum). He died in Falls Church, Va in 2007. Frequent contributor to WSJ. He was a sceptic concerning the political and economic transformations in Poland in 1990's. He received a death sentence following defection (in absentia), his propery in Poland was confiscated, and he never again returned to his native Poland. Amazingly enough, he died of natural causes (cancer) at the age 76.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...012601695.html